Talk:Crossfield class
Name What's the source for the name? - Mitchz95 (talk) 15:34, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :Eaglemoss.--Memphis77 (talk) 16:17, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::That can't possibly be an accepted source, is it? -- Capricorn (talk) 18:07, October 2, 2017 (UTC) :::If it's not also referenced in a source listed on MA:RESOURCE as well, then it's not... as much as we may want it to be. -- Renegade54 (talk) 18:17, October 2, 2017 (UTC) ::::Play it by the rules, then. Move to Discovery type, put Crossfield class in the background notes. Then, try Twitter to get class confirmation from Ted Sullivan or another DSC official, or await dialog/screencap confirmation. Kind regards, -- Markonian 12:14, October 3, 2017 (UTC) :::::Unless Eaglemoss states that they got the name from an official source, I would agree that this should be at Discovery-type. I would also hope that we will get a shot of the dedication plaque at some point in a future episode, which would clear this up. 31dot (talk) 13:07, October 3, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Ben Robinson has proven he has a lot of behind the scenes information in regards to Discovery. I'll Tweet him to ask, and see if he responds. 13:53, October 3, 2017 (UTC) ::::In addition, should it be Glenn-type or Discovery-type? We see the D first, but the G has a lower registry. Kind regards, -- Markonian 14:36, October 3, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I'd lean toward Discovery-type. "Type" is just a placeholder when the real class name is unknown, and since most people will naturally associate it with Discovery it should be made easiest to find. - 03:44, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::We invariably use the first ship we see for type designations. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 06:03, October 4, 2017 (UTC) :::::Registry numbers have never been stated to be assigned consecutively, so that's not necessarily representative of which ship was first. 31dot (talk) 10:20, October 4, 2017 (UTC) ::::All your arguments make sense. I agree. Kind regards, -- Markonian 19:48, October 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::FYI Photos from the next episode are on TrekCore and show the plaque. It clearly reads Crossfield --Tuskin38 (talk) 01:40, October 7, 2017 (UTC) ::::In that case, I recommend waiting for the episode before we move anything, to avoid a back-and-forth. Kind regards, -- Markonian 18:55, October 7, 2017 (UTC) Design The ship does not really have a saucer section, so to speak, but is really a tri-hulled ship. A delta primary hull (containing the engine room as well as the shuttle bay) with a forward and upward extrusion which ends with a roughly spherical pod (containing the bridge). In addition, two ring hulls that extrude from what could be called the neck and surround the spherical pod and one another to form a saucer like structure. -- 17:50, October 3, 2017 (UTC) USS Crossfield Is there such a ship? I realize that typically the class leader sets the name for the class, but I thought the Discovery and the Glenn were the only two ships testing the spore drive and that Stamets had input into the design. (given that the rings rotate, a very specialized function) 31dot (talk) 02:37, November 24, 2017 (UTC) :Well, there's no evidence of a USS Crossfield, so it's speculatory. --Defiant (talk) 09:57, November 24, 2017 (UTC) ::And FWIW, we have the which by all rights should have been the USS Dreadnought or a member of the Vengeance class. The Crossfield should stay removed until we have solid evidence. -- Compvox (talk) 14:49, November 24, 2017 (UTC) :::John Eaves says there are first ships for each of the classes, but there is no on screen evidence of such, yet --Tuskin38 (talk) 15:46, November 24, 2017 (UTC) :Please cite your source. Otherwise, that information is inadmissible. --Defiant (talk) 17:14, November 24, 2017 (UTC) :::Sorry, I didn't think it mattered since it wasn't on screen evidence, here screencap--Tuskin38 (talk) 17:31, November 24, 2017 (UTC) That is only worth a bg note until a USS Crossfield is seen or mentioned. 31dot (talk) 18:22, November 24, 2017 (UTC) Length So Eaglemoss has posted the length of the Crossfield as 750m. I know Eaglemoss isn't a valid source for M-A, but should it be mentioned in BG info? Eaglemoss does get their information right from CBS.--Tuskin38 (talk) 18:48, January 17, 2018 (UTC) :Ship Specs: I've done indepth analysis on the Crossfield class, I came to the conclusion of the following stats: :Length: 750m :Beam: 309m :Hieght: 75m :Decks: 22 :This is backed up by the Eaglemoss magazine which has it at 750m (and got this info from CBS) and has also been confirmed to me by John Eaves and other people I know who work on the show. :I've removed the 15 decks stat on the page, since it isn't backed up anywhere that it only has 15 decks and I'm seeing that number quoted on various sites and forums as a reason the ship can't be 750m because "It says 15 decks on Memory Alpha" (SuricataFX (talk) 18:54, January 17, 2018 (UTC)) ::Please note: it doesn't matter if it comes from Eaglemoss, or that Eaglemoss gets their data from CBS, or John Eaves, or others who work on the show. For MA purposes, it's only canon if it appears on-screen (or is spoken in dialogue). Anything else should appear in the background section of an article, not in the main body. Thanks! -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:06, January 17, 2018 (UTC) Most of the ships from Battle of the Binary stars should be edited then, their class names don't come from the show's dialogue, they come from confirmation from John Eaves--Tuskin38 (talk) 19:11, January 17, 2018 (UTC) :::Please actually read MA:RESOURCE and . Names can be used from production sources under very specific circumstances and you should retain your original indent on talk pages. - 23:16, January 17, 2018 (UTC) ::::I have been waiting to ask this question. Can we use the class names from Eaglemoss for the Klingon ships seen in the two-parter?--Memphis77 (talk) 23:57, January 17, 2018 (UTC) Rotating rings The text currently reads, "The outer and middle sections housed rings that could rotate clockwise and counter-clockwise respectively...." But in at least one episode (S01:08, Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum) upper and lower portions of the outer ring can be seen rotate in opposite directions from each other. What's the best way to convey this? 01:51, February 28, 2018 (UTC) Apocrypha - Maximum Speed In addition to the figure of Warp 8 given here, in the season 2 episode 'New Eden' Captain Pike ballparks a regular maximum warp travel time to a 51.000 light year distant target at 150 years, giving an effective speed of 340c. Working backwards with the TOS Warp formula this comes to pretty much exactly Warp 7 (Warp 6.97, to be exact.). 12:55, May 9, 2019 (UTC) Removed (NCC-1019) might be Crossfield class as it was imagined by a Discovery crew member and had identical interiors. However, it should be noted that ships also featured highly similar interiors.}} Because it is essentially contradictory speculative garbage. --Alan (talk) 14:13, March 26, 2019 (UTC) Hi, I've just registered with the wiki so I could ask this question before editing the page. There's an image under the Defenses section that says "firing phasers". That image is not showing the Discovery firing phasers, it's showing Discovery under fire from phasers. Discovery's phasers are not continuous beams with the TOS squeal effect - they are darker blue bolts in short bursts. In the image provided, those are Section 31 phasers from their ships, impacting on Discovery. Whilst the Enterprise in that scene did have the blue beams as depicted (as they had in TOS), this isn't Discovery's phaser fire. I would like to replace the picture with another one but before I did I wanted to ask a consensus here please. Thank you Firing phasers image Hi I am the user https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User:%20Dfslkjbnltalrvlxdguh Forgive my rando name, that's my reddit name. I've just registered with the wiki so I could ask this question before editing the page. There's an image under the Defenses section that says "firing phasers". That image is not showing the Discovery firing phasers, it's showing Discovery under fire from phasers. Discovery's phasers are not continuous beams with the TOS squeal effect - they are darker blue bolts in short bursts. https://youtu.be/5HLNn9AZrZg?t=33 From the battle the wiki picture is from, you can see here there are bolts coming from Discovery to the ships on their aft - the angle requires them to be coming from Discovery: https://youtu.be/CfaTZC2IJSA?t=125 And in this clip you can see it firing on something to it's ventral-port. https://youtu.be/CfaTZC2IJSA?t=174 In the image on the wiki, those are Section 31 phasers from their ships, impacting on Discovery. Whilst the Enterprise in that scene did have the blue beams as depicted (as they had in TOS), this isn't Discovery's phaser fire. I would like to replace the picture with another one but before I did I wanted to ask a consensus here please. Thank you